People are voting emotionally.

Memorable, crazy movie

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

The second movie of the Karnstein Trilogy. I did like the opening of the film - the resurrection of Mircalla / Carmilla Karnstein - that was pretty well done. I liked the costuming, some of the sets and the music - but that it about it. So the film started out really good then quickly dropped to a weak and quite boring vampire film once the main characters entered into the girls school.Mircalla / Carmilla Karnstein is resurrected 40 years after the first film. A girls school was built near by the Karnstein castle and Mircalla / Carmilla enters there to drink the blood of her victims: men and women a like.I did not like the girls school idea nor was I crazy about the some of the acting. Yutte Stensgaard is Mircalla / Carmilla Karnstein and is quite boring to watch as a vampress - very stiff acting. And I did not like the ancient Greek/roman dancing - I love dancing but it ruined this film.The movie might be OK to watch once if you like vampires but otherwise I would skip this film.4/10

Lust For A Vampire is the second of the Karnstein films from Hammer, following on from the rather impressive The Vampire Lovers. The films were inspired by Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla, and once again the character of Carmilla features significantly in the plot here (Yutte Stensgaard taking over the role from Ingrid Pitt, who was memorably beheaded at the climax of the previous film). Indeed the film opens with one of those typical blood-sacrifice resurrection sequences that seemed a staple ingredient of the Hammer Dracula movies, only this time the blood of a village virgin is used to bring our favourite lesbian vampire back to life.In the shadow of the abandoned Karnstein Castle, a young maiden is picked up by a mysterious carriage. Grateful for the lift, she climbs aboard willingly… but it turns out to be the last mistake she ever makes. The girl is taken up to the castle where her throat is slit, the resulting blood spillage used to resurrect the long dead lesbian vampire Carmilla (Yutte Stensgaard). Writer Richard Lestrange (Michael Johnson) is visiting the village to research a new book when he learns of the girl's disappearance and the villagers' superstitious fears. Dismissing their worries as nonsense, he heads up to the castle to investigate. He learns that there is a newly opened finishing school close to the castle, run by Miss Simpson (Helen Christie) and creepy schoolmaster Giles Barton (Ralph Bates). Lestrange is instantly besotted with one of the girls at the school – a young blonde named Mircalla (you've guessed it – it's Carmilla, using a cunning anagram to disguise her identity!) Lestrange spends the rest of the movie lusting after Mircalla (hence the film's title), little realising – or not caring if he does – the peril in which he is placing himself.Since the extra helpings of sex, nudity and lesbianism had gone down so well in The Vampire Lovers, even more is thrown in to Lust For A Vampire. Sadly, it brings nothing to the story – it just acts as a rather desperate, rather seedy tactic to generate extra box office for a not-very-good film. Stensgaard is used – like most of the female cast – for eye candy only; meanwhile, the best actor and character in the whole thing (Bates, as the lecherous Mr Barton) is bumped off far too soon into the proceedings. In fact, Tudor Gates' awkward and uneven script isn't kind to the actors at all – not just content with disposing of interesting characters too early, it also lets characters drift out of the story for long periods, and worse still, jarringly injects characters late in the film to get the plot moving again (the American father of one of Mircalla's victims and a saintly bishop being two examples of this). The script does no favours for the plot either, often rambling aimlessly off-track. It seems pretty clear throughout that Lust For A Vampire is bereft of ideas and energy, relying time after time on its more sensational aspects, namely the frequent pauses for nudity and titillation. It becomes preoccupied with sexuality and sensuality, and forgets to give as much time and effort to its other themes. While all this flesh on display might be enough to satisfy some viewers, it leaves twice as many again wishing that there was a bit more to (pardon the pun) get their teeth into.

This R-rated vampire film made me laugh. After all, a vampire who died over a hundred years earlier (Countess Carmilla) has been revived and she matriculates at a nearby girls school. While this idea is silly, it's even sillier since the school apparently is only for hot ladies ages 18-25! And, during much of their free time, they spend it dressing and undressing and kissing each other! It was all meant to be very sexy and at times it was, but I also laughed a lot since it was so contrived and clichéd. After all, they sure seemed to come up with so many excuses to get naked! However, despite this silly plot, the film actually was pretty good in many ways. Much of it was, I am sure, due to it being made by Hammer Films--a studio that had already made a bazillion horror films and knew how to get the look right. While it's far from the studio's best, it was pretty good--and a lot better than some of their other 1970s vampire films (such as "The Satanic Rites of Dracula"). And, if you are looking for boobies, then this film should do the trick.By the way, don't you think the guy vampire looked an awful lot like General Zod from "Superman II"?! And, although not a bad film, get a look at the silly way they killed off Carmilla! Pretty dumb and pretty convenient!!

Sheridan Le Fanu wrote a Gothic little vampire tale called Carmilla in the 19th century that has astoundingly been the subject and backdrop of a surprising amount of films. The story is quite good yet in no way is the material enough to cover the breadth and scope of more than one film - which is one of the major problems with this Hammer entry. Lust for a Vampire is the second in a trilogy of Hammer films known throughout filmdom as the "Karnstein Trilogy." The first film is The Vampire Lovers which is a wonderful adaptation of Le Fanu's work. Then we have this film - which is what it is - still clinging ever so strongly to the vastly resource-depleted story of Carmilla, and lastly there is Twins of Evil which is nothing more than a Carmilla film in name only because of places and general themes and film trends. So the story here by Tudor Gates is very lacking. This time around we have a girl's school - and the girls are of course all around 18(Many looking like they are in their early/mid 20s)and drop-dead gorgeous with well-coiffed hair, elegant dresses, and that "I just had my picture taken for the centerfold in Playboy" look. Nothing wrong with that but we are asked to believe it opened up in the heart of Eastern Europe RIGHT BY the castle of a family known throughout the countryside as evil vampires(and still coming to life every so often as we are told through the opening sequence of the film). Now I know it is only a film, and, yes, maybe I am over analyzing here - but this Hammer entry lacks the ingenuity, creative spark, and acting/directorial talents associated with Hammer. It is a product of its time - the early 70s - and Hammer had resorted to "tricks" if you will far more heavily then they ever had done so before. We see lots of bosoms here - lots.(Okay I CAN live with this.) Violence is at minimum for even a Hammer film, but what we also get which is a trend at this time are films where there is no recognizable star power. No Peter Cushing here(although I do understand he was slated to be in it but personal problems forced him to cancel). No Christopher Lee. No Andre Morel even or Andrew Keir. I would have even taken Michael Ripper, but what we get is Ralph Bates, a serviceable actor at best, in a throwaway role and not much else in terms of acting talent. The male lead Michael Johnson has a bit of charisma but is far more annoying as a thespian - I wanted him to get it very early on. The young beautiful girls are just that. Carmilla/Mircalla is played by Danish beauty Yutte Stensgaard. She is lovely to be sure, but she has little to do other than the "normal" things lesbian vampires do in films like this. Pippa Steel is also awesome eye candy. But the worst casting and most laughable of all is that of Mike Raven as some vampire in the wings so to speak who looks, acts, and sounds like Christopher Lee. Almost his whole repertoire of words is "heart attack." Pretty soon you start laughing just at the sight of him for just how ridiculous and unprofessional these scenes are - and in very bad taste as to the mood of the rest of the film. While I will agree that Lust for a Vampire is entertaining overall to a degree - it is also heavily flawed and unworthy of the great Hammer tradition, Jimmy Sangster the director, and many of the Hammer legions of production workers who have worked and created much superior work.